Cursor vs Augment Code: AI Coding Tool Comparison
Cursor is an editor-first tool with a free plan, while Augment Code centres on a Context Engine that indexes large codebases and offers IDE agents and a CLI on credit-based plans.
- Verified 4 Nov 2026Sources are dated on this page
- 4 sourcesLinked, typed and dated
- No winner declaredFit depends on your criteria
- Not tested by Stack18Editorial summary of documented facts
Cursor vs Augment Code: the short answer
Cursor is an editor-first tool with a free plan, while Augment Code centres on a Context Engine that indexes large codebases and offers IDE agents and a CLI on credit-based plans.
Augment's plans changed during 2026 and sources conflict, so check both vendors' live pricing before comparing cost. We compare what documentation supports and mark everything else Unknown. We declare no overall winner, because the better choice depends on workflow, model preferences, oversight needs and budget.
Choose Cursor if you- Developers who prefer an editor-centred workflow
- Teams that want to choose between several model vendors
- Organisations that want org-wide Privacy Mode and SSO
Choose Augment Code if you- Large and multi-repo codebases
- Security-conscious engineering teams
- JetBrains and VS Code users who want deeper context
Cursor and Augment Code at a glance.
One card per product, drawn from each full profile. Open a profile for features, pricing plans, limits and sources.
Cursor
Anysphere · AI Coding Agents
Cursor is an AI-native code editor from Anysphere that combines an in-editor Agent, Tab autocomplete and cloud agents, with access to models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google alongside Cursor's own models.
Agentic tool- Pricing
- Free Hobby plan; Pro $20 per month.
- Best for
- Developers who prefer an editor-centred workflow
Augment Code
Augment Code · AI Coding Agents
Augment Code is an AI coding platform for large, production codebases. Its Context Engine indexes repositories so chat, IDE agents, the Auggie CLI and cloud agents can reason over real project context, with credit-based pricing.
Agentic tool- Pricing
- Indie $20, Standard $60 and Max $200 per month on pricing-page snapshots; later reports describe a Business plan from $100 per month; Enterprise custom.
- Best for
- Large and multi-repo codebases
Cursor vs Augment Code: feature-by-feature comparison.
Every row is drawn from the sources listed below. Rows that differ are marked, and you can filter the table to show only those.
- YesDocumented
- PartialAvailable with limits or on some plans
- NoDocumented as unavailable
- UnknownNot documented in the sources reviewed
| Dimension |  Cursor |  Augment Code |
|---|---|---|
| Product | ||
| Primary interface | YesAI code editor (desktop app) with cloud agents. | YesVS Code, JetBrains, CLI and Slack. |
| Model choiceDiffers | YesModels from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, plus Cursor's own models. | PartialFrontier models; credit cost varies by model. |
| Open-source status | UnknownLicence not reviewed for this profile. | UnknownLicence not reviewed for this profile. |
| Pricing | ||
| Free tierDiffers | YesFree Hobby plan with limited Agent requests and Tab completions. | NoNo free plan documented; trial reported. |
| Pricing model | YesMonthly tiers with included usage at model API rates; on-demand usage after that. | YesCredit-based subscriptions. |
| Published plan prices reviewedDiffers | YesPro $20, Pro+ $60, Ultra $200 and Teams $40 per user per month, per Cursor's pages. | PartialIndie $20, Standard $60, Max $200 on snapshots; later reports differ. |
| Agents | ||
| Cloud or remote agents | YesCloud agents, charged at model API pricing. | YesAsynchronous cloud agents, per a tracker. |
| Extensibility | ||
| MCP, skills and hooks | YesMCP servers, skills and hooks on Pro and above. | YesMCP and native tools. |
| Control | ||
| Documented approval and oversight controls | UnknownNot documented in the sources reviewed. | UnknownNot documented in the sources reviewed. |
| Administration | ||
| Organisation and admin controls | YesOrg-wide Privacy Mode, SAML or OIDC SSO and an admin dashboard on team plans. | YesSOC 2 Type II and no-training commitment reported on paid plans. |
Cursor vs Augment Code pricing.
Cursor pricing
Monthly subscription tiers with included usage priced at model API rates; on-demand usage billed in arrears after included usage is used.
- HobbyFree
- Pro$20 per month
- Pro+$60 per month
- Ultra$200 per month
- Teams$40 per user per month
Prices from a vendor-published source. Checked 15 Oct 2026.
All Cursor plans and sources
Augment Code pricing
Credit-based subscriptions with a monthly credit allowance and auto top-up; Enterprise is custom. Plan names have changed during 2026.
- TrialFree trial
- Indie$20 per month
- Standard$60 per month per developer
- Max$200 per month per developer
- Business$100 per month (up to 50 seats, reported)
Structure only; figures not recorded. Checked 4 Nov 2026.
All Augment Code plans and sourcesCursor: Free Hobby plan; Pro $20 per month.
Augment Code: Indie $20, Standard $60 and Max $200 per month on pricing-page snapshots; later reports describe a Business plan from $100 per month; Enterprise custom. Prices and allowances change often, so confirm on each vendor's live page.
Prices and plans change. Confirm current terms with each vendor before you decide.
Cursor vs Augment Code: implementation, ecosystem, AI and security.
Ease of implementation and usability
We did not test setup or onboarding effort. Evaluate both tools on a real branch of your own repository, with your own tests and conventions.
Integrations and ecosystem
Cursor: MCP servers, Skills and hooks, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google models, Cloud agents. Augment Code: VS Code and JetBrains, Auggie CLI, Slack, GitHub.
AI capabilities
Model choice: Cursor - Models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, plus Cursor's own models. Augment Code - Frontier models; credit cost varies by model.
Security, deployment and administration
Approval and admin controls: Cursor - Not documented in the sources reviewed. Augment Code - Not documented in the sources reviewed. Certifications and data-retention terms were not reviewed for either product; check each vendor's security documentation.
Cursor and Augment Code: each option, in balance.
Cursor
Strengths and limitations from the profile
- Offers models from several vendors in one product, so teams are not tied to a single model family.
- A free Hobby plan lets developers try the editor and agent before paying.
- Team plans document org-wide Privacy Mode enforcement, SAML or OIDC SSO and an admin dashboard.
- Certain models can use Max Mode with context windows up to 1M tokens, which is relevant to large codebases.
- Usage is metered at model API prices against an included amount, so heavy agent users may incur on-demand charges.
- Tab and Apply from Chat run on custom models and cannot be billed to a user's own API key.
- The plan and price structure changes often, and versions of the pricing page have differed, so budgeting requires checking the live page.
- Human-approval and permission controls for the agent were not documented in the sources reviewed for this profile.
Augment Code
Strengths and limitations from the profile
- A Context Engine indexes large codebases for all surfaces.
- Agents available in IDEs, CLI, Slack and code review.
- Reported SOC 2 Type II and no-training commitment on paid plans.
- Usage dashboards show credits per team member.
- Plans and pricing changed during 2026 and sources conflict.
- Credits vary by model and task, making cost hard to predict.
- A review reports inline completions were removed from non-Enterprise plans on 31 March 2026.
- No free plan is documented, only a trial.
Cursor or Augment Code: which fits which situation?
No overall winner is declared. The better choice depends on the criteria that matter most to you, so test both against your own requirements.
Choose Cursor if you…
- Developers who prefer an editor-centred workflow
- Teams that want to choose between several model vendors
- Organisations that want org-wide Privacy Mode and SSO
Choose Augment Code if you…
- Large and multi-repo codebases
- Security-conscious engineering teams
- JetBrains and VS Code users who want deeper context
Switching between Cursor and Augment Code.
Moving between Cursor and Augment Code means re-creating project instructions and rules, re-adding MCP servers or other tool connections, and adjusting how your team reviews agent output. Trying each on a separate branch before committing is a low-risk way to compare them.
- Export a sample of your data and test an import into the other product.
- List the automations, integrations and permissions you would need to rebuild.
- Pilot with one team before a full cut-over.
- Check contract terms and notice periods with both vendors.
General guidance, not specific to either vendor. Confirm migration options with the vendors.
Cursor vs Augment Code: questions and answers
Is Cursor or Augment Code better?
The sources reviewed do not support a single ranking. The better choice depends on interface preference, model needs, oversight requirements and budget, so test both on your own repository.
Does Cursor have a free plan?
Free Hobby plan with limited Agent requests and Tab completions.
Does Augment Code have a free plan?
No free plan documented; trial reported.
Which supports more models, Cursor or Augment Code?
Cursor: Models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, plus Cursor's own models. Augment Code: Frontier models; credit cost varies by model.
Where this comparison comes from.
- Cursor pricing Cursor (cursor.com) Official Accessed 15 Oct 2026
- Cursor documentation: Pricing Cursor (cursor.com/docs) Official docs Accessed 15 Oct 2026
- Augment Code pricing Augment Code Official Accessed 4 Nov 2026
- Credit-based pricing Augment Code Docs Official docs Accessed 4 Nov 2026
Comparison rows summarise the sources listed and the two profiles. Confirm current details with each vendor. Stack18 has not tested either product.
Ready to test Cursor and Augment Code?
Check each vendor's current pricing and terms, run both against a real scenario from your business, or talk to Stack18 if off-the-shelf software is not the answer.
Logos provided by Logo.dev. Product names and logos are trademarks of their respective owners and appear for identification only; they do not imply endorsement.